House of Cards: The “13-hour movie” defining the Netflix experience

Beau Willimon talked to Ars about how the streaming company is changing TV's rules.

Every late January/early February TV calendar is loaded with premier dates. At first glance 2013 is no different—the network and cable heavyweights are obliging. (Editor’s note: Skip that Kevin Bacon show on Fox, though episode one of FX’s The Americans was fun.) But with this year’s slew of pilots, the most anticipated debut comes from an unexpected source: Netflix.

Ask some of the players involved, however, and they’ll say arguing that TV is evolving is a waste of time. “Any distinction between the Internet and TV will fall away in the next five or six years, so I wouldn’t really talk about this as a new format so much as the distinction between formats is going away,” says Beau Willimon, the showrunner behind House of Cards.

“This will lend itself to interesting possibilities. We went an hour because in some territories, things will be on regular broadcast TV where the Netflix service isn’t available. But when streaming is available anywhere across the globe, there’s not even a reason to stick the half hour or hour-long models. You can have an episode that’s 20 minutes, an episode that’s 90 minutes. And I think audiences have already gotten used to—with DVR and Netflix—having a great bit of control over their viewing habits. If people want to reach audiences who are used to that, they’re going to have to adapt. Netflix just happens to be the first, so they’re leading the charge.”

If Willimon sounds a bit off-script for a TV talking head, it’s because he is. His background is well documented, famously going from political staffer to Farragut North, then from playwright to an Oscar nomination with Ides of March. He’s never worked in TV before; neither has David Fincher, and Kevin Spacey only has marginal experience. But Willimon thinks that’s partially why House of Cards will match its hype. “We weren’t bound by convention, we didn’t have ingrained habits as to how to make TV and so we just approached it as storytellers: ‘What’s the story we want to tell and what’s the best way to tell it?’ We didn’t always reinvent the wheel, but we always questioned it.“

Director Allen Coulter (left) talks with Beau Willimon on the set of House of Cards.

Patrick Harbron for Netflix

So what’s different in House of Cards from what we’ve seen before? The show is originally based on a particularly scandalous BBC mini-series, a political thriller replete with plenty of dark arts: blackmail over drug use, internally prompted impeachments, ordered hits, and an elaborate media manipulation scheme disguised as an affair. All that risqué material is fine and dandy on British airwaves, but what you can and can’t do on American TV tends to be a bit more limited (thanks FCC!). On Netflix, though? It’s a new frontier with more potential for exploration.

“You saw Ides of March and you know David Fincher’s work. We do not tend to shy away from the risqué with this show,” Willimon says. “We wanted to tell a dark story: bad people doing bad things. Maybe on another network we would’ve gotten pushback on a number of things we do, but I think we take it much further than the BBC series did. I don’t want to give too much away, but if you’re worried about us avoiding the risqué or the potentially controversial, you should put those worries to bed right away. Even the first 30 seconds I don’t think would’ve made it past a lot of network execs.”

(A preview on Grantland will spoil this scene for you. The top of this TechCrunch article is the best description we’ve seen of said 30 seconds without giving away what’s actually happening. But Ars has seen the first two episodes and it appears Willimon is right—we haven’t seen that on TV before. You can check it out for yourself beginning February 1.)

Beyond what’s on screen, there are significant new TV business practices looming with House of Cards, first and foremost being Netflix’s hands-off approach. Netflix isn't producing the show; it's simply operating as the company licensed exclusively for its service. So Willimon and the creative team had “virtual complete control and freedom.” Unlike nearly all new scripted television, they weren’t even getting formal notes from their ‘network’ in this instance.

“At the very beginning they said and promised, ‘We believe in you and want you to make the show you want to make. Because whatever show you want to make is the one we want to air. You know better than us,’” Willimon says. “That takes an incredible amount of boldness but also business savvy to take that step. It emboldens you to take risks and try things maybe other creative teams would stop themselves before, saying, ‘Oh, it’ll never make it past network.’ You never felt like you had a network breathing down your neck and I think that’s conducive to creativity.”

Part of that initial deal includes another unparalleled opportunity. Rather than the House of Cards team producing a few episodes, waiting for them to air, then worrying about cancellation, it has an unprecedented commitment from Netflix. Twenty-six episodes upfront. There's no ratings watching to be done here, possibly ever, really (as Vulture notes, Netflix doesn't depend on ad sales so we may never know how the House of Cards viewership compares to traditional TV). And to really emphasize the true Netflix nature of all this, discussions occurred throughout its creation about how the show will be released. No need for cliff hanger endings and “next week on” montages—ultimately House of Cards’ 13-episode first season will be available all at once.

“We looked at all sorts of different models, but decided that was the best way to go,” Willimon says. “That’s what the Netflix experience is—putting the choice in the audience’s hands: how they want to watch it, when they want to watch it, and in what chunks they want to watch it. That was the best way to exploit what they have to offer that no one else does, which is your personalized viewing experience.”

Director David Fincher works with Kevin Spacey during filming for House of Cards.

Melinda Sue Gordon for Netflix

That new structure carries with it narrative implications. The pacing of the two episodes Ars previewed is different from what we’ve been conditioned to accept with traditional cable drama. There’s no need to pad an individual episode with more or less content due to network run times and number of ads sold. Willimon says rather than thinking of individual episodes, the creative team approached it all as a “13 hour movie,” and that comes across in the first two hours.

“On a lot of other shows, you have to play the ratings game. Even great shows in the first half of their first seasons may implement these artificial cliffhangers to keep people coming back because they’re fighting for their survival,” Willimon says. “We didn’t have to worry about that. So we could think about, not just one season but two seasons. I could implement something in early season one and it might not come back until the end of season two. That means more layered, more sophisticated storytelling. Our hope was people would want to immediately watch the next episode, not because we instituted some sort of superficial cliffhanger, but because they’re so invested in the complex story and characters, that’s what draws them back.”

Ultimately, fan and critical reception to House of Cards will carry a lot of weight for Netflix’s original programming dreams going forward. However, just the fact that the company reached this point may already establish it as a real player in content creation. After all, approaching Hollywood types with more creative freedom, more guaranteed episodes, and more room to experiment is a lucrative opportunity. Netflix has leveraged that opportunity already post-House of Cards, landing Arrested Development, a comedy from the creator of Weeds, and a horror series from the director of Hostel. So even before he can experience any of the critical reception, Willimon thinks this trend will continue.

“It may become more and more the model,” Willimon says. “I think as great filmmakers and people in the TV world say, ‘If I have a choice between Net A and Net B and one will allow me to make the show I want to make while the other is meddlesome,’ where are you naturally going to gravitate? It’s savvy, look at the amount of talent Netflix has attracted just in its first foray into this. And I’m not talking just about our show—whether it’s Arrested Development, Hemlock Grove, or Orange is the New Black. They’ve got real heavyweights among the best in the business and I think you’re going to see the gravitation toward this model continue.“

142 Reader Comments

Can't wait until they actually do bring Arrested Development back... I didn't watch it when it was on TV, but a friend suggested watching it on Netflix, and I ended up loving it. This is a cool way of bringing shows back that main stream channels won't touch. Too bad Wheedon doesn't want to revisit Firefly, that would be another great show to put on Netflix... or maybe even Farscape!

It's interesting you mention Arrested Development, since many of those episodes require viewers to have watched previous episodes to know what's going on. Someone jumping into the middle of a season would end up being very confused... which also means that this format would fit AD much better than network TV

OT: But those images are HUGE (about 8MB each?) You might want to put them through a shrink-o-ray. Really makes scrolling the page a bit choppy. And I can't imagine what that would look like on a lesser internet connection.

I found it fascinating to read about the different treatment for the show given that they didn't have to conform to Network TV norms. If I were in television I would be extremely excited at the prospects of what Netflix is offering. I don't think anyone pitching a show should go anywhere first except for Netflix.

OT: But those images are HUGE (about 8MB each?) You might want to put them through a shrink-o-ray. Really makes scrolling the page a bit choppy. And I can't imagine what that would look like on a lesser internet connection.

I actually came to post the scrolling with an image on-screen was choppy and it never is on Ars. Thanks for figuring it out for me. Also, please don't format such large images in the page. Links to larger files are great if they're necessary to tell the story.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here and point out that sometimes too much creative control can be a bad thing. The best example of this is in the publishing industry, where lots of authors have to abide by the publisher's rules until they become megastars; as they become more and more famous, their books tend to become bloated messes. I'm sure we can all think of several examples of this. I'm also concerned with how new blood will break into the creative business after we move to these new models. I would love to see Netflix or someone pick up "Pioneer One", where the gap between episodes seems to be growing exponentially. Felicia Day and The Guild seem to demonstrate that it will be possible, however.

OT: But those images are HUGE (about 8MB each?) You might want to put them through a shrink-o-ray. Really makes scrolling the page a bit choppy. And I can't imagine what that would look like on a lesser internet connection.

I actually came to post the scrolling with an image on-screen was choppy and it never is on Ars. Thanks for figuring it out for me. Also, please don't format such large images in the page. Links to larger files are great if they're necessary to tell the story.

OT: But those images are HUGE (about 8MB each?) You might want to put them through a shrink-o-ray. Really makes scrolling the page a bit choppy. And I can't imagine what that would look like on a lesser internet connection.

I think Netflix's next real move is to make a deal with the cable TV companies to offer an On Demand Netflix channel that includes streaming to any mobile device much like what HBO offers its subscribers.

I'm pretty excited about the show - it made me register for Netflix, but the suggestion that FU in Ian Richardsons performance was somehow too sugary due to TV demands? That is absolutely ridiculous.

From the short trailer I saw Spacey is good, but it was the combination of Richardsons subtlety within the story combined with his brutality and bluntness when breaking the fourth wall that made the original series the masterpiece it truly is.

I think Netflix's next real move is to make a deal with the cable TV companies to offer an On Demand Netflix channel that includes streaming to any mobile device much like what HBO offers its subscribers.

I think that kind of goes against the exact thing Netflix is trying to do.

Firefly is an issue because the rights are tied up and not for sale, Whedon loves Firefly and would love to do it. Things that aren't for sale can still be bought, but it's not so easy. But between Amazon, Hulu and Netflix there's no shortage of internet buyers.

g0m3r619 wrote:

I think Netflix's next real move is to make a deal with the cable TV companies to offer an On Demand Netflix channel that includes streaming to any mobile device much like what HBO offers its subscribers.

This is really the same as HBO and Showtime original programming. The difference is its reasonably priced for access and you do not need an subscription to their cable channel.

HBO wonders why their shows get pirated so much. Its because they do not offer it outside cable subscriptions. And at $16/month with less content (overall, but more original programming) is not a deal compared to Netflix.

HBO, offer me $8/month subscription to stream your content to my tablet, PS3 and PC. I will be all over that to catch up on all your content.

Can't wait until they actually do bring Arrested Development back... I didn't watch it when it was on TV, but a friend suggested watching it on Netflix, and I ended up loving it. This is a cool way of bringing shows back that main stream channels won't touch. Too bad Wheedon doesn't want to revisit Firefly, that would be another great show to put on Netflix... or maybe even Farscape!

Netflix recommended "Better off Ted" to us, and we loved it. Perhaps Netflix will save more shows from the stupidity of time-slot shifting or the Networks desire to put top show against top show on the same nights.

I think Netflix's next real move is to make a deal with the cable TV companies to offer an On Demand Netflix channel that includes streaming to any mobile device much like what HBO offers its subscribers.

Walk us through your thinking here. Why would Netflix want to get into bed with its direct competitors to market an inferior subset of its experience, when it is increasingly in position to reshape the television landscape? "Netflix On Demand" is... well, Netfix, isn't it? As a cable subscriber, why would you pay $100+ a month for bundled access to Netflix, when you can get Netflix bare for $8?

Netflix sees strategic benefit in undermining the cable value proposition. Making a deal to prop them up would be the most illogical thing to do, I think.

I'm very interested in how Netflix does with its original programming initiatives. Lillyhammer, for instance, was fairly poorly received, but it's getting a second season. Giving a show time and a chance to cultivate an audience, in part because it doesn't have to fight for time on a fixed programming schedule, is a relatively unique opportunity in television–only HBO/Showtime/Cinemax ever make multi-season commitments to shows with mediocre returns, and that not often. (HBO's In Treatment and Mind of the Married Man come to mind; John from Cincinnati and AMC's Rubicon are direct counterexamples from networks that try to stay above the schizophrenia of "regular" network channels.)

Firefly is an issue because the rights are tied up and not for sale, Whedon loves Firefly and would love to do it.

There's also the very real fact that some of the actors are committed to new shows, unless you intend to re-cast them. Nathan Fillion is on Castle. Morena Baccarin is on Homeland.

That's not that much of an issue. The season can start any time on Netflix, and could have smaller 'seasons' that can fit into gaps in shooting. Jewel Staite is the biggest issue because Joss actually wanted her to put a bit of weight on to be Kaylee, but her character on The L.A. Complex is so totally not that.

I think Netflix's next real move is to make a deal with the cable TV companies to offer an On Demand Netflix channel that includes streaming to any mobile device much like what HBO offers its subscribers.

I think that kind of goes against the exact thing Netflix is trying to do.

Well not really. When they actually include the owners of the distribution network they are currently using for free there would be less resistance from the cable company AND they'd have much easier access to their customers. Access to HBO's on demand service costs about the same as a Netflix account. Netflix would be doing the same thing EVERY other content owner is doing with the Cable companies. The cable TV providers do not own most of the channels they offer their subscribers. So if you look at this objectively Netflix is nothing new. The content owners make a deal with the cable company to allow them to show their programming for a fee. Since Netflix wants to create its own content and charge people to access it this is the best rout for them. I mean as an addition to their regular model for those people who don't wish to subscribe to cable. I'm pretty sure if there was n actual On Demand Netflix channel many current cable TV subscribers would subscribe to it assuming their original content was good. On demand programming isn't new. It's existed before Netflix started offering streaming service.

This is really the same as HBO and Showtime original programming. The difference is its reasonably priced for access and you do not need an subscription to their cable channel.

HBO wonders why their shows get pirated so much. Its because they do not offer it outside cable subscriptions. And at $16/month with less content (overall, but more original programming) is not a deal compared to Netflix.

HBO, offer me $8/month subscription to stream your content to my tablet, PS3 and PC. I will be all over that to catch up on all your content.

I personally believe that HBO’s long term viability is extremely grim, but their current strategy seems very rational to me.

In the interview, Kessler talks about why moving to internet distribution would deal a fatal blow to HBO’s business. The engine that turns people into subscribers is not sustainable when HBO is not directly packaged with cable TV affiliates:

Quote:

We benefit tremendously from the existing ecosystem. […] There are 60, 70, 80,000 customer service agents on the phone every day, and you know what they’re talking about? They’re talking about HBO. The affiliate covers that cost. The billing systems. That’s the affiliates. If you watch HBO 5 minutes a month or 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, that’s not a cost we have. In addition, we benefit tremendously from the fact that the cable operator bundles HBO into existing packages. So if they offer double-play or triple-play, you know, they say, get HBO free for three months. The ability to market and bundle with the affiliates is very beneficial to us. So it’s very beneficial to us to keep that transactional machinery going.

What you don’t want to do is to pursue a distribution channel over here [ed: the internet], where you think, well, let’s go around the affiliate and we’ll get a couple hundred thousand subs. But the promotional, and packaging support we get over here [ed: the affiliate networks], which, by the way, is the foundation of our 30 million subs and enables us to get 10 million transactions, if that dissipates, and that shrinks, then we will lose a lot of subs over here. Because with 10 million transactions, you have to generate a lot of subs every single day. You can’t afford to have that machinery slow down. So we’ll gain a little over here, and we’ll lose a lot over here, and we think there will not be a net gain, there would be a net loss. So it’s really about economics and a business issue.

Well not really. When they actually include the owners of the distribution network they are currently using for free there would be less resistance from the cable company AND they'd have much easier access to their customers.

Netflix DOES NOT use the distribution network for free. They pay for their connections.

It doesn't get any easier than access to Netflix on nearly every device sold today.

There's also the very real fact that some of the actors are committed to new shows, unless you intend to re-cast them. Nathan Fillion is on Castle. Morena Baccarin is on Homeland.

That's not that much of an issue. The season can start any time on Netflix, and could have smaller 'seasons' that can fit into gaps in shooting. Jewel Staite is the biggest issue because Joss actually wanted her to put a bit of weight on to be Kaylee, but her character on The L.A. Complex is so totally not that.

Actually, it is an issue because the more actors you have committed to more shows, the more difficult it is simply to schedule shoots. Remember, in the Netflix model, episodes aren't being produced on a rolling basis–you don't shoot three episodes then wait for them to start airing and get ratings so the network approves another batch of five. Air date has no implication on production for a Netflix Original, but making the show still requires getting lots of people together for significant batches of time.

And before you say, "Oh, just schedule scene shoots on the basis of the availability of people in those scenes," realize that each shoot requires a small army of support personnel. A per-actor availability scene shooting scheme drives the cost of production through the roof, since each scene requires the same amount of setup and lighting and so on.

This is really the same as HBO and Showtime original programming. The difference is its reasonably priced for access and you do not need an subscription to their cable channel.

HBO wonders why their shows get pirated so much. Its because they do not offer it outside cable subscriptions. And at $16/month with less content (overall, but more original programming) is not a deal compared to Netflix.

HBO, offer me $8/month subscription to stream your content to my tablet, PS3 and PC. I will be all over that to catch up on all your content.

I personally believe that HBO’s long term viability is extremely grim, but their current strategy seems very rational to me.

In the interview, Kessler talks about why moving to internet distribution would deal a fatal blow to HBO’s business. The engine that turns people into subscribers is not sustainable when HBO is not directly packaged with cable TV affiliates:

Quote:

We benefit tremendously from the existing ecosystem. […] There are 60, 70, 80,000 customer service agents on the phone every day, and you know what they’re talking about? They’re talking about HBO. The affiliate covers that cost. The billing systems. That’s the affiliates. If you watch HBO 5 minutes a month or 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, that’s not a cost we have. In addition, we benefit tremendously from the fact that the cable operator bundles HBO into existing packages. So if they offer double-play or triple-play, you know, they say, get HBO free for three months. The ability to market and bundle with the affiliates is very beneficial to us. So it’s very beneficial to us to keep that transactional machinery going.

What you don’t want to do is to pursue a distribution channel over here [ed: the internet], where you think, well, let’s go around the affiliate and we’ll get a couple hundred thousand subs. But the promotional, and packaging support we get over here [ed: the affiliate networks], which, by the way, is the foundation of our 30 million subs and enables us to get 10 million transactions, if that dissipates, and that shrinks, then we will lose a lot of subs over here. Because with 10 million transactions, you have to generate a lot of subs every single day. You can’t afford to have that machinery slow down. So we’ll gain a little over here, and we’ll lose a lot over here, and we think there will not be a net gain, there would be a net loss. So it’s really about economics and a business issue.

People don't seem to get that it's not Netflix which is changing the way people consume content. It's the proliferation of smart mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, and etc) and the growing number of people who are paying for mobile data plans. Fact is streaming content will be ubiquitous in the near future. Cable companies are already set. They have the technology in place. I know when I had Cablevision in NYC they offered me "free" access to their wifi network they had installed across the city. Add that to the existing streaming options offered by subscription channels I had like HBO and internet TV services like Hulu and I had TV on the go anytime of the day.

If anyone's curious - I'm sick and am spending the day on the couch - it's looking very promising from the first couple of episodes. Kevin Spacey is part snake oil salesman, part surgical strike. Also the writing is excellent.

I think Netflix's next real move is to make a deal with the cable TV companies to offer an On Demand Netflix channel that includes streaming to any mobile device much like what HBO offers its subscribers.

I think you are off in the weeds somewhere. You make the assumption that the TV companies WANT to do that (completely contrary to evidence) and that they want to PARTNER with someone else to do it (absurd).

Well not really. When they actually include the owners of the distribution network they are currently using for free there would be less resistance from the cable company AND they'd have much easier access to their customers. Access to HBO's on demand service costs about the same as a Netflix account. Netflix would be doing the same thing EVERY other content owner is doing with the Cable companies. The cable TV providers do not own most of the channels they offer their subscribers. So if you look at this objectively Netflix is nothing new. The content owners make a deal with the cable company to allow them to show their programming for a fee. Since Netflix wants to create its own content and charge people to access it this is the best rout for them. I mean as an addition to their regular model for those people who don't wish to subscribe to cable. I'm pretty sure if there was n actual On Demand Netflix channel many current cable TV subscribers would subscribe to it assuming their original content was good. On demand programming isn't new. It's existed before Netflix started offering streaming service.

You're arguing that Netflix should allow itself to be coopted by the cable companies, further entrenching the stranglehold they have on content delivery. Beyond simple profitability, Netflix has a philosophical goal of intrinsically separating delivery from consumption. Why do I have to wait until next week for another episode of Person of Interest? Why does each episode have to last 44 minutes, with 3 minutes of commercials every 10 minutes? Sure, I can DVR and then fast forward to skip the ads, but that's pushing the solution downstream, onto me, instead of upstream and into the very nature of the service.

We don't all read new articles at the same time, or listen to podcasts or watch YouTube videos collectively, yet they still form a shared experience of sorts. The schedule-based synchronicity of television is an anachronism, and Netflix is positioned to be a prime mover in eliminating it. Why would they give that up to be the equivalent of FX?

Cut the cord a year ago and went with Netflix. Although dark political drama is not quite my cup of tea, I'm still looking forward to it. A good story is a good story. A rarer thing nowadays with the proliferation of dreck like Jersey Shore.

People don't seem to get that it's not Netflix which is changing the way people consume content. It's the proliferation of smart mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, and etc) and the growing number of people who are paying for mobile data plans. Fact is streaming content will be ubiquitous in the near future. Cable companies are already set. They have the technology in place. I know when I had Cablevision in NYC they offered me "free" access to their wifi network they had installed across the city. Add that to the existing streaming options offered by subscription channels I had like HBO and internet TV services like Hulu and I had TV on the go anytime of the day.

Netflix is older than the proliferation of smart mobile devices. Netflix was named "NET flix" for a reason, even when its core business was delivering DVDs by mail. (Minimum viable product.)

Cable companies don't want you streaming, because they can't charge you per use. The streaming services they increasingly offer are a response to Netflix, just like the DVRs they now bundle with their cable boxes were a response to TiVo. I don't want a future in which the company that provides me with internet access also gets to determine what streaming content is available. Think that's hyperbolic? Ever seen those licensing spats between a cable provider and a content creator?

Remember the US cellular market before the iPhone, when the networks told the manufacturers what features to offer in their devices and ran their own exclusive "app stores"? In this analogy, Netflix is the iPhone, disintermediating the cable company networks.

Firefly is an issue because the rights are tied up and not for sale, Whedon loves Firefly and would love to do it.

There's also the very real fact that some of the actors are committed to new shows, unless you intend to re-cast them. Nathan Fillion is on Castle. Morena Baccarin is on Homeland.

I don't know. 10-11+ years later to revisit this - might not be in the best interest of the series. Even if they might get the cast back together - they killed off 2 key characters and they most likely will have a batch of new and different folks working behind the cameras. It won't be the same. It's not like when FOX cancelled Futurama and years later Comedy Central picked it back up for new Episodes. That is animation and Matt Goenig can draw the characters how they were a decade earlier - the voice actors were brought back (with some controversy) but even if they gained weight or look older or whatever their voices are relatively the same for each character.

Nate Fillion looks significantly older and even if he tones up some to reprise the role - it's still akin to bringing Shatner back (again) to reprise Kirk.

They would be fine doing another movie or 2 but the series needs to be left to the cult archives.

Cut the cord a year ago and went with Netflix. Although dark political drama is not quite my cup of tea, I'm still looking forward to it. A good story is a good story. A rarer thing nowadays with the proliferation of dreck like Jersey Shore.

I dropped my cable TV but kept them as my ISP years ago. Haven't been happier. I stream shows I want to see and the shows that aren't streamed I simply download. I had Netflix for a while but dropped them after I ran out of things I wanted to watch and the few things they were offering I actually did want to watch were on a wait status for so long I gave up on them. If they offered access to current shows or had decent original programming I would have no problem picking them back up. If they were reviving a show like Odyssey 5 I would go back yesterday.